Quote of the Day – R0n P4ul Edition

As promised, QotD #3 on the same subject. This time from the comments at Unix-Jedi’s place (at his suggestion, and well given):

Man is a social animal and will always have to live within a social structure, particularly once they get over the tribal limit. That social structure will consume a certain amount of time and effort and resources. It is no different than the necessity to devote time and effort and resources to securing food, water, and shelter. However much we’d rather avoid it, that’s no argument against working to put roofs over our heads. This is our nature, this is our environment, this is what we have to do to live and thrive.

This offends anarcho-libertarians in the same way that human self-interest offends communists. Tough shit. Both philosophies are based on false premises and false views of human nature. I no more feel the need to justify “robbery” to an anarcho-libertarian than I feel the need to justify private property to a commie, or agriculture to a breatharian. When you choose to fight nature, nature’s gonna’ win.

ernunnos

Got 27 Minutes

Got 27 Minutes?

My Boomershoot buddy sent me a link to a speech given by new New Jersey governor Chris Christie to about 200 mayors at the New Jersey Statehouse. About thirty minutes, no teleprompters, no notes (not even on his palms) and no holds barred. He pulled no punches and spared no feelings.

As he says (at about 20 minutes in):

Now when I was running for governor I told people repeatedly, from February to November, that I was committed to governing as a one-termer. Now a lot of people thought that was political rhetoric, to try to get elected, and a lot of people thought that I didn’t really mean it. I hope that when you see what I’ve done in the first five weeks that you know I meant it. ‘Cause man, if you’re looking to get re-elected, this is not the kinda stuff you do.

But it is the kind of stuff that has to be done. And it looks like the New Jersey electorate knows it.

If he manages to accomplish what he believes he needs to do, I would not be at all surprised to see New Jersey’s economy rebound, their tax revenues rebound, and Christie get a second term through general acclaim.

And, of course, he’ll be roundly denounced for failing on a campaign promise for doing so.

Give it a listen. It’s damn seldom you hear a politician speak unvarnished truth.

Some Good News Out of Chile

Some Good News Out of Chile

My previous employer has an office in Santiago. When I started work for the company, a couple of the guys in the office here in Tucson were transfers from Chile working here temporarily. They went home at the end of 2008. On Monday I talked to someone still working at my old office and asked them to keep me updated on the situation. I got an email yesterday just before I headed home.

The Santiago office building survived the quake. It has been inspected and has been determined safe for occupancy. Eighty-five percent of the staff showed up to work on March 1. No employees or immediate family members were killed or severely injured. Obviously, they’ve got power, telecom, and IT problems, but other than that, they’re ready to do engineering work.

Chile’s going to need a lot of that in the next few years. They’ve got a good crew there.

Quote of the Day – R0n P4ul Edition

Quote of the Day – R0n P4ul Edition

I knew a mention of Dr. Paul here would bring out the wookie-suiters. Today’s QotD comes from reader Britt who left this in comment to yesterday’s QotD:

It comes down to this: If we were in a country where Ron Paul could be elected President, we wouldn’t need Ron Paul to drastically shrink the size of the FedGov. We got here because a majority of the population wanted to get here, don’t ever forget that. Changing it is highly unlikely, to say the least.

And tomorrow there’ll be another R0n P4ul topic quote for a trifecta!

So the McDonald Oral Arguments Were Today

From the transcript (PDF):

Alan Gura:

Although Chicago’s ordinances cannot survive the faithful application of due process doctrines, there is an even simpler, more essential reason for reversing the lower court’s judgment. The Constitution’s plain text, as understood by the people that ratified it, mandates this result.

In 1868, our nation made a promise to the McDonald family that they and their descendants would henceforth be American citizens, and with American citizenship came the guarantee enshrined in our Constitution that no State could make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of American citizenship.

The rights so guaranteed were not trivial. The Civil War was not fought because States were attacking people on the high seas or blocking access to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. The rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment were understood to include the fundamental rights honored by any free government and the personal guarantees of the —

And here he’s interrupted by Chief Justice Roberts:

Of course, this argument is contrary to the Slaughter-House cases, which have been the law for 140 years. It might be simpler, but it’s a big — it’s a heavy burden for you to carry to suggest that we ought to overrule that decision.

Gura:

Your Honor, the Slaughter-House cases should not have any stare decisis effect before the Court. The Court has always found that when a case is extremely wrong, when there is a great consensus that it was simply not decided correctly, especially in a constitutional matter, it has less force.

Justice Sotomayor interjects:

What is it that has -has been caused by it that we have to remedy, meaning States have relied on having no grand juries, States have relied on not having civil trials in certain money cases, they have relied on regulating the use of firearms based on us, the Court, not incorporating the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the way that you identify it.

Gura attempts to respond:

State —

Sotomayor completes her thought:

What — in which ways has ordered liberty been badly affected?

Gura:

Justice Sotomayor, States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional.

Damned straight. But SCOTUS was having none of that. Justice Ginsburg roused herself from her nap:

Are you saying that the rights — if you could clarify your conception of privileges and immunities. Am I right in thinking that to keep and bear arms would be included even if we had no Second Amendment, as you envision privileges and immunities?

I’ll answer that one: HELL YES.

Gura responded:

Justice Ginsburg, that is correct. The framers and the public understood the term –

and Ginsburg overrode:

But just tell us the dimensions of what it is. I mean, we have the eight amendments, so I know you say that’s included. Keep and bear arms would be included even absent the Second Amendment. What unenumerated rights would we be declaring privileges and immunities under your conception of it?

That’s not the question, but it’s a great diversion. As North Carolina’s James Iredell noted during that state’s ratifying convention, the enumeration of some rights might be mistaken for protection of only those rights, and not others. As he said, “[I]t would not only be useless, but dangerous, to enumerate a number of rights which are not intended to be given up; because it would be implying, in the strongest manner, that every right not included in the exception might be impaired by the government without usurpation; and it would be impossible to enumerate every one. Let any one make what collection or enumeration of rights he pleases, I will immediately mention twenty or thirty more rights not contained in it.”

But the question here regards a specific enumerated right, not some lawyer’s imaginings. This is a distraction from the point, and Gura tries to (politely) call her on it:

Although it’s impossible to give a full list of all the unenumerated rights that might be protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause, just as it is impossible to do so under the Due Process Clause, at least with respect to the Privileges and Immunities Clause we have wonderful historical guideposts. There are —

And then Scalia jumps in:

Mr. Gura, do you think it is at all easier to bring the Second Amendment under the Privileges and Immunities Clause than it is to bring it under our established law of substantive due? Is it easier to do it under privileges and immunities than it is under substantive due process?

This from a guy who really dislikes “substantive due process”? My response would have been “What does ‘easier’ have to do with it?” But I’m not the guy standing in front of the Supreme Court, either.

Gura:

It is easier in terms, perhaps, of — of the text and history of the original public understanding of —

In other words, it’s the right way to do it, but Scalia is having none of that:

No, no. I’m not talking about whether — whether the Slaughter-House Cases were right or wrong. I’m saying, assuming we give, you know, the Privileges and Immunities Clause your definition, does that make it any easier to get the Second Amendment adopted with respect to the States?

Again, what does easier have to do with it? Why should SCOTUS’ job be made easy? You’re the ones who put yourselves in this mess by not overturning Slaughter-House decades ago.

Gura:

Justice Scalia, I suppose the answer to that would be no, because —

Scalia:

Then if the answer is no, why are you asking us to overrule 150, 140 years of prior law, when — when you can reach your result under substantive due — I mean, you know, unless you are bucking for a — a place on some law school faculty —

BECAUSE IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

Scalia:

What you argue is the darling of the professoriate, for sure, but it’s also contrary to 140 years of our jurisprudence.

If it’s BAD JURISPRUDENCE, it’s THE JOB OF THE SUPREME COURT TO FIX IT. SCOTUS is the court of last resort. Slaughter-House was bad law, and it spawned a lot more bad law. The Augean stables started with one horse. Cleaning that up wasn’t easy either, but it needed doing.

This is another example of the fact that we don’t really have a “justice” system, we have a “legal” system. I’m fairly confident that, through “substantive due process,” the Second Amendment will get incorporated under the 14th, but it should be, as Chief Justice Taney described, one of the “privileges and immunities” of all citizens as it was understood and expressed in 1856’s Scott v. Sanford.

And how hard that would be shouldn’t even be a consideration of the Court.

Old News, but How Did I Miss THIS?

OK, today I stumbled across the fact that a couple of the stars of the now completed SciFi series Battlestar Galactica appeared at the UN for a panel discussion back in March of last year. The New York Times gave it some print, stating:

The Sci Fi Channel series “Battlestar Galactica” will be the subject of a panel discussion involving the creators of the show, two of its stars, Mary McDonnell and Edward James Olmos, and representatives from the United Nations’ offices of the secretary general and high commissioner for human rights.

How a television series about interstellar travel, ancient prophecies and genocidal robots came to join forces with a terrestrial intergovernmental body relates to the Sci Fi Channel’s philanthropic activities and the United Nations’ efforts to become more media savvy.

Oooookay.

For the United Nations, the event represents the second effort of its Creative Community Outreach Initiative. Announced by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at last June’s Jackson Hole Film Festival, the initiative is the organization’s attempt to “establish partnerships with the entertainment industry to tell the U.N.’s story,” said Juan Carlos Brandt, a spokesman.

Its first undertaking was to allow a television crew to shoot at United Nations facilities this month for an episode of “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit,” about child soldiers.

Will they do another episode, this one about child-rapists and child prostitution? That’s part of “the UN’s story” too.

Representatives from the Sci Fi Channel approached the United Nations early this year. “They came to us and explained that there were themes common to both the show and the U.N.,” Mr. Brandt said, “and that those themes could be discussed here in a serious manner.”

Whoopi Goldberg will moderate the discussions.

Whoopi.

The exemplar of calm, deliberate, factual debate!

Then the following June a couple of UN representatives traveled to Hollyweird and another panel discussion took place there!

The panel featured Battlestar’s executive producers Ron Moore and David Eick; actors Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell; and U.N. representatives Steven Siqueira and Craig Mokhiber (whose actual job titles are so formidable and impressive, they would require a separate essay). Serving as moderator was L.A. Times’ Geoff Boucher. A packed house sat in anticipation of some solid political discourse, which Boucher was quick to point could not have found a more likely home that the intersection of Hollywood and Highland (what with the guy paid to wear that SpongeBob costume being just yards away…….).

SpongeBob for UN Secretary General! The denizens of the ocean are insufficiently represented in the UN!

The U.N.’s Mokhiber seemed sincere in his admission that the U.N. has come to view Battlestar Galactica as “more allegory than fiction.” He cited “freedom from fear and freedom from want” as issues that fuel both the U.N. and BSG’s plotlines, with enough overlap that Mokhiber insisted Battlestar must surely “owe royalties to the U.N.”

“Freedom from fear and freedom from want.”

Must be nice. Who provides that?

There’s more you probably ought to read, but I’m going to skip to this part (hey, it’s my blog):

Siqueira said that while the U.N. has at times been given a spot in big Hollywood filims(sic), it had been more of a “bit player or prop” in the past. Its recently heightened show business presence stems from the realization that the entertainment industry is “much better at communicating these issues.”

Funny how that works. Music and movies and video games don’t influence the public when it’s something bad they’re accused of, but when it’s something good, well then! Nothing better for it!

This admission was interesting as well:

Eick confessed that the evolution of the show as a lighting rod for political discourse was “surreal” given that the show was initially “dreamed up in sports bars.” He says it was a matter of trying to tell good stories “that were being informed by a sick world.” Eick seemed less shy about pointing a finger of admonishment toward specific political figures. Especially ones nicknamed Dubya. “If we’d done this show ten years later,” he said, it would have been a totally different ballgame.

And then there was this:

As Boucher optimistically posed to the panelists: What can people do to become more politically active?

Mokhiber noted there are no shortage of volunteer opportunities through organizations like Amnesty International, but even more simply than that, he relayed that people ought to “find out what the heck is going on” in the first place.

Siqueira offered up: “Care about one issue deeply, and act.”

We have. It’s called the TEA Party movement. But that’s not what they wanted:

Eick, on the other hand, continued to serve up a more sassy partisan opinion of how to enact change. “Find somebody to beat the hell out of Glen Beck!” he insisted.

Why are Leftists such h8rs and so (vicariously) violent? (Or recently, personally violent?)

Quote of the Day – Ron Paul Edition

I saw this last week but forgot to bookmark it. Unix-Jedi points to one of the most succinct expressions of my problem with Ron Paul I’ve ever seen. From Attack Cartoons:

you’re all familiar with the broken clock that is right twice a day. ron paul is like a strange broken clock that is right 23 hours a day. then you get to some foreign policy midnight, and in stead of chiming, it barks and smears itself with poo.

Thing is, 23 hours right is at minimum triple the time of anybody else in Congress, if not a couple of orders of magnitude better.

Unfortunately, the poo-smearing has been a deal-killer for me.